Gay genes are recessive? But they haven't found a gay gene yet, so it's nonsensical to say they are recessive genes.

It's probably not on a single gene. In My opinion, it's probably a combination of factors that are expressed on several different genes. I say this because sexual attraction isn't merely attraction to the genitals of the other person, but to many different aspects of the person.

Gay genes are recessive? But they haven't found a gay gene yet, so it's nonsensical to say they are recessive genes.

I never claimed they were. I was using the example of genes for hair coloration as an analogy for how a "gay gene" could be transmitted from two straight parents. I don't mind answering questions, but I do mind when you take the answer I give you and make a strawman out of it.

Quote from: skeptic54768

In my view, it is a choice. Anyone can make a choice to have sex with another guy. But, most people don't make that choice. We choose not to.

Do you even understand how sexual arousal works? A person doesn't choose to be aroused by something. They simply become aroused by it. It's no more a choice than having your leg kick up when someone taps your knee. You might be able to restrain it, but you can't actually stop it. The only choice involved is whether you act on that arousal, not whether you get aroused.

That's the point that you're refusing to see. You're basically claiming that gay men choose to be aroused by other men, even though you don't choose to be aroused by women. And that simply doesn't work. It flies in the face of what we know about human reactions and responses.

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

In my view, it is a choice. Anyone can make a choice to have sex with another guy. But, most people don't make that choice. We choose not to.

Do you have a "choice" when it comes to sex?If you think yes, choose to have homosexual sex once, I bet you 60 pretzels that you will fail.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

In my view, it is a choice. Anyone can make a choice to have sex with another guy. But, most people don't make that choice. We choose not to.

I agree that anyone can choose to have sex with another man. But if everyone is hetero, as you have claimed, why would they want to? Why would they do that? Can you imagine any non-coersive situation where you would decide to have sex with another man? On a lark? I don't think so. There has to be an appeal, an attraction, no? Unless, it is some kind of quid pro quo situation where two guys who cannot otherwise get action agree to satisfy each other. In which case, that is not really what gay people describe. They describe exclusive attraction and emotional attachment to the same sex.

It is not that I find your answer morally despicable. It is that your point of view does not sufficiently explain observed reality. As such, I have to reject it.

You are trying very hard to deny their perspective and observed reality. You are very invested in your point of view being right. You should know that is a barrier to learning.

(it has also been observed that order of birth correlates. The last male out of the womb is more frequently homosexual than his predecessors.)

Interesting...that would add an environmental factor, though, rather than the thought that it's something one is born with. After all, how would a male fetus have any way to "know" he would be the last boy his mother would have. Interestingly, my brother-in-law, who is gay, is, in fact, the last male born in a family of 6 boys and a girl.

Sometimes I wonder about my own younger son, who, at the age of almost 23 has never had a girlfriend, though has always had female "best friends". I think he's just one of those who is not afraid of his feminine side, though. I can't imagine that he would not have had the courage to come out by now if he was, especially given that he knows no one in the family could care less about a person's sexual identity. Not that this has anything to do with the thread. Not meaning to derail it (more than it has already been derailed!), just a mom's ramblings...

There a scientific studies out there that show the female and gay male brains are similar ....compared to the straight male brain.....look it up instead of just assuming you are right Skep. It's easy if you try

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

In my view, it is a choice. Anyone can make a choice to have sex with another guy. But, most people don't make that choice. We choose not to.

Of course it is your view. If it wasn't, your theology that you hold so closely (upon which you have so heavily invested) would be ruined. This is what drives your confirmation bias toward any view that affirms your assumptions. It is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order (or should I say lowest) - seek only to affirm/defend and ignore all evidence or sound argument to the contrary. But of course, we know this is your MO. How about actually practicing some open-mindedness to the possibility that you are mistaken about your assumptions?

In my view, it is a choice. Anyone can make a choice to have sex with another guy. But, most people don't make that choice. We choose not to.

Skeptic- I have to point out the obvious. Look at your words.

You are clearly talking to men, about men. And yet you use words like "anyone" and "most people."

Do you consider women to fall into the category of "anyone" or "most people."

Or are women's actions too irrelevant to address?

Edited to add: You did this in a previous thread, talking about a lazy 30 year old who never got a job and didn't move out of his parents house. You made it real clear that this sinner was male. I spoke about my own secular upbringing and my attitudes towards work, and my hopes and dreams for my daughter, and how my childrearing strategies reflected those aspirations. And you continued talking about men.

I'm really curious. What is your attitude towards women and our role in society?

In my view, it is a choice. Anyone can make a choice to have sex with another guy. But, most people don't make that choice. We choose not to.

Of course it is your view. If it wasn't, your theology that you hold so closely (upon which you have so heavily invested) would be ruined. This is what drives your confirmation bias toward any view that affirms your assumptions. It is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order (or should I say lowest) - seek only to affirm/defend and ignore all evidence or sound argument to the contrary. But of course, we know this is your MO. How about actually practicing some open-mindedness to the possibility that you are mistaken about your assumptions?

But whenever I posted evidence for God from scientists who have evidence that consciousness created the universe, it was just dismissed with a wave of the hand. How is that honesty?

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

In my view, it is a choice. Anyone can make a choice to have sex with another guy. But, most people don't make that choice. We choose not to.

Skeptic- I have to point out the obvious. Look at your words.

You are clearly talking to men, about men. And yet you use words like "anyone" and "most people."

Do you consider women to fall into the category of "anyone" or "most people."

Or are women's actions too irrelevant to address?

Edited to add: You did this in a previous thread, talking about a lazy 30 year old who never got a job and didn't move out of his parents house. You made it real clear that this sinner was male. I spoke about my own secular upbringing and my attitudes towards work, and my hopes and dreams for my daughter, and how my childrearing strategies reflected those aspirations. And you continued talking about men.

I'm really curious. What is your attitude towards women and our role in society?

My attitude toward women is the same as men. It's just that men are more likely to be lazy than women.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

In my view, it is a choice. Anyone can make a choice to have sex with another guy. But, most people don't make that choice. We choose not to.

Of course it is your view. If it wasn't, your theology that you hold so closely (upon which you have so heavily invested) would be ruined. This is what drives your confirmation bias toward any view that affirms your assumptions. It is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order (or should I say lowest) - seek only to affirm/defend and ignore all evidence or sound argument to the contrary. But of course, we know this is your MO. How about actually practicing some open-mindedness to the possibility that you are mistaken about your assumptions?

But whenever I posted evidence for God from scientists who have evidence that consciousness created the universe, it was just dismissed with a wave of the hand. How is that honesty?

First of all, I have seen no such evidence - neither have I seen you actually present any rational arguments or defenses to those claims. Merely making CLAIMS and then pouting when others do not accept your conclusions says absolutely nothing about whether your claims are true. You need to demonstrate your claims - not just CLAIM that "this evidence right here shows the universe was created by 'consciousness'". Again, arguments from ignorance and/or incredulity do not get you to, "Therefore some 'mind thing' did it."

If you'd like to present this alleged evidence you say you have, go ahead. But please be aware that just b/c YOU have a presuppositional bias toward the confirmation of your conclusion does not mean that we do. If you attempt to use logical fallacies (such as the argument from incredulity) your 'evidence' will not be accepted as such (and it should not be in any circumstance by anyone b/c it would be irrational to do so).

It is not wrong for God to murder for the same reason it's not wrong for a parent to say "Bedtime at 10 P.M." to their child, even though the parent stays up until 2 A.M.

Is the child right or wrong for calling the parent a hypocrite?

Comparing parental rules to murder?

Seriously, Skeptic, if you can't tell the difference between those two scenarios, please don't have any children.

Or adopt any children.

Or babysit any children.

Or cats, or dogs, or any other living things.

Astreja is right on. this may be the *worst* analogy I've ever seen. A parent gives rules like bedtimes in order to teach their child something (get sufficient sleep, for example). Or, it may be a punishment--again, to teach the child something AND IMPROVE THIER BEHAVIOR.

Your god kills people...why, exactly?

Logged

...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

It is not wrong for God to murder for the same reason it's not wrong for a parent to say "Bedtime at 10 P.M." to their child, even though the parent stays up until 2 A.M.

Is the child right or wrong for calling the parent a hypocrite?

Comparing parental rules to murder?

Seriously, Skeptic, if you can't tell the difference between those two scenarios, please don't have any children.

Or adopt any children.

Or babysit any children.

Or cats, or dogs, or any other living things.

Astreja is right on. this may be the *worst* analogy I've ever seen. A parent gives rules like bedtimes in order to teach their child something (get sufficient sleep, for example). Or, it may be a punishment--again, to teach the child something AND IMPROVE THIER BEHAVIOR.

Your god kills people...why, exactly?

When people disobey God, He gets angry. Imagine people constantly disobeying every minute of every day. Wouldn't you get fed up and decide that they don't deserve the gift of life? If everybody is taking everything for granted and doesn't appreciate the life God has given you, what do you expect Him to do? Just laugh about it?

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

I explained to you guys thousands of times that I do not have the authority to do such things. Only God does. God can restore all life.

Even if that were true, what is the subsequent fate of whatever being was brought back to life? If your god despised someone enough to murder him, does it resurrect this person for the specific purpose of throwing him into hell and hurting him some more?

I also hope you realize that since the human brain deteriorates immediately upon death, your god would also have to reconstruct that person along with all his faults in order to justify dropping him into hell. Why?